123 WOE UNTO THEM THAT LAY FIELD TO FIELD: CLOSER SETTLEMENT IN THE EARLY LIBERAL ERA Monique van Alphen Fyfe* This article undertakes a re-examination of the origins, construction and application of the Land for Settlements legislation in the early Liberal era. The Liberal's commitment to closer settlement reveals part of the story of highly contested land policy in colonial New Zealand. Land for Settlements legislation of the 1890s, aimed at "bursting up" the great estates, was predominantly the product of settlers' ideological aspirations and two determined politicians: John Ballance and John McKenzie. When measured against the rhetoric used to promote it, however, the policy was not necessarily effective: it was complicated by practical realities and a narrow vision of New Zealand as a vigorous Arcadian paradise. When contrasted with the treatment of Māori land, yet more of the complexity of the land issue and the frailties of the actors facing it are revealed. The article concludes by proposing that Liberal policy, while flawed in execution, may have nevertheless contributed something to the consolidation of the concept of New Zealand as an agrarian ideal, a concept that remains largely intact today. I INTRODUCING AN IDEOLOGY Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey; where wealth accumulates, and men decay.1 Liberal land policy has been an evocative and much examined topic for historians of decades past. The emergence of Waitangi Tribunal histories has since tended to homogenise Crown land policy such that very real shifts in government initiatives risk becoming overlooked. Land policy was, in fact, highly contested in colonial New Zealand. This article addresses the actions of a Government which is widely credited, deservedly or not, with introducing radical programmes of land reform, * BArch(Hons). Submitted as part of the LLB(Hons) programme at Victoria University of Wellington. The author would like to extend her deepest thanks to Professor Richard Boast QC for his invaluable patience and guidance. 1 Oliver Goldsmith "The Deserted Village" (1770) as cited in (20 July 1894) 83 NZPD 653 per EM Smith MHR. 124 (2016) 47 VUWLR particularly the "bursting up" of great estates. To that end, this article re-examines the detail and effect of the Liberals' early closer settlement policy to rediscover something of the complexities of the story. First, the broad social and political themes of the era and the viewpoints of key political figures are outlined, followed by an examination of the legislation they enacted. Closer settlement was part of a myriad of legislation related to land that intended to distribute it more densely and equitably. Its particular links to land tax and tenure policies are noted. Also noted is its germination in the thinking of reforming politicians such as John Ballance and John McKenzie, whose ideologies were heavily influenced by their experiences of land issues in Ireland and Scotland respectively. Implementation of the policy is then addressed. The much-celebrated example of Cheviot is discussed in detail, followed by a general overview in order to measure the success of the policy with reference to the rhetoric that accompanied its promulgation. Looking more broadly, the policy is then considered against the treatment of the greatest estate. The Liberal approach to Māori land is contrasted with that relating to Pākehā land, revealing yet more of the complexity of the land issue and the frailties of the actors facing it. The article concludes by examining the proposition that Liberal policy, while flawed in execution, may have nevertheless contributed something to the consolidation of an idea of New Zealand: that it is a fair and free agrarian paradise. II FOUNDATIONS FOR REFORM A land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness.2 A The State of the Colony The majority of the adult European population in 1890 were migrants. Their idea of New Zealand was one shaped by the promotion of the colonies as a "'New World' utopia", where industriousness rather than inherited privilege would be rewarded.3 It had long been recognised that settlers were "animated by the desire of having a piece of the world they may call their own".4 Steeped in various 2 Deuteronomy 8:9 as cited in James Cowan New Zealand or Ao-Te-Roa: Its Wealth and Resources, Scenery, Travel-Routes, Spas, and Sport (New Zealand Government Department of Tourist and Health Resorts, Wellington, 1908). See also for context Miles Fairburn The Ideal Society and Its Enemies: The Foundations of Modern New Zealand Society 1850–1900 (Auckland University Press, Auckland, 1989) at 22–27 and 256. 3 David Hamer The New Zealand Liberals: The Years of Power, 1891–1912 (Auckland University Press, Auckland, 1988) at 50–53. 4 (23 August 1870) 9 NZPD 194 per Rt Hon William Fox MHR. WOE UNTO THEM THAT LAY FIELD TO FIELD: CLOSER SETTLEMENT IN THE EARLY LIBERAL ERA 125 shades of biblical education, settlers projected a "common desire for greater equality".5 Politicians, also so steeped, frequently saw themselves as nation builders as the words of John Ballance illustrate:6 … we are engaged in building up – or rather laying the foundation – of a great Nation, which certainly is now one of the brightest jewels in the British Crown. A self governing country, the people of which are earnestly devoted to freedom … The divide between the Old and New Worlds is starkly apparent in the land debate. As David Hackett Fischer notes:7 Land had a double importance in setter societies. It was arguably the most important instrument for the shaping of a social order. At the same time, it was perceived as the primary way to individual wealth. These two purposes were often at odds, increasingly so. Fears that Old World class systems were replicating themselves in New Zealand are amply illustrated by parliamentary debates.8 Land, the principal source of livelihood and security – and thus freedom – was seen as becoming concentrated in the hands of the few. Even more affronting, this land often sat idle. Politicians claimed New Zealand, an assumed tabula rasa, had an opportunity to set a different path. By providing solutions to these Old World problems, as a "social laboratory of the world" New Zealand had an opportunity to establish its national identity.9 Land, or access to it, was considered the cause of and answer to many contemporary problems. It was of particular concern in the South Island, especially Canterbury and Otago, where vast estates were common and there was little surplus Crown land and virtually no Māori land left into which to expand. Without it, southern farmers feared their sons would be forced to migrate to the North Island or Australia.10 Settlers in the North Island, too, complained of a lack of land, but the monopolisers 5 Tom Brooking "Use it or Lose it: Unravelling the Land Debate in Late Nineteenth-Century New Zealand" (1996) 30 NZJH 141 at 148. 6 John Ballance MHR private correspondence as cited in Hamer, above n 3, at 53, n 63. See also David Hackett Fischer Freedom and Fairness: A History of Two Open Societies, New Zealand and the United States (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012) at 306–307; and John Stenhouse "God's own silence: secular nationalism, Christianity and the writing of New Zealand history" (2004) 38 NZHJ 52. 7 Fischer, above n 6, at 153 (citations omitted). 8 See for example (26 August 1891) 74 NZPD 80; (10 August 1892) 76 NZPD 603; and (10 October 1895) 91 NZPD 279 per Hon John McKenzie MHR. 9 Hamer, above n 3, at 59–61. 10 Tom Brooking Lands for the People? The Highland Clearances and the Colonisation of New Zealand: A Biography of John McKenzie (University of Otago, Dunedin, 1996) at 80; and JS Duncan "The Land for the People" in Murray McCaskill (ed) Land and Livelihood: Essays in Honour of George Jobberns (New Zealand Geographical Society, Christchurch, 1962) 170 at 177–180. 126 (2016) 47 VUWLR were Māori.11 Across the country, lack of land was seen as contributing to unemployment and population pressure in towns.12 Urbanisation was viewed as inferior to and less productive than rural living.13 Policy to reverse this trend was generally welcomed. Land reform was thus considered by many Liberals to be the foremost of all political questions, of universal significance and the universal solution.14 The land question manifested itself in growing hostility towards land banking, landlordism and owner absenteeism. Settlers wanted to own land to achieve independence and raise their prospects, but also, as Miles Fairburn suggests, to connect with the land in a way perceived as interrupted by the industrial revolution.15 Given that in 1888 one per cent of landowners owned 64 per cent of available freehold land,16 this was an impossible dream. If the 1880s had been the decade of runholders and monopoly, the following decade promised to be very different. New Zealand in 1890 was in the throes of recovering from prolonged economic depression. Large landowners had generally escaped unscathed, but smaller farmers struggled immensely. The increasing monopoly in land ownership combined with a reluctance to sell at depressed prices was locking smaller farmers out.17 Compounding this were the unsavoury tactics of grid-ironing (buying up attractive pockets and leaving others inaccessible or unprofitable) and dummyism (buying land in the name of another to circumvent statutory limits). These circumstances began to shape questions: what amount of land was enough, who ought to own it, and under what terms? Tom Brooking summarises it thus: "The land debate was … about the hard issues of paying off debt, productivity, monopoly of wealth, and political power, as well as softer and more sentimental issues."18 The debate raging behind this was one of tenure: which of freehold or leasehold ought to be dominant in this New World? Passion ignited either side.